CHAPTER XLIX

THE precepts of the fourteenth class are those which we enumerated
in the Section on Women, the Laws concerning forbidden sexual intercourse, and cross-breeding
of cattle (Sefer nashim, Hilkot issure biah ve-kaleë behemah). The law concerning
circumcision belongs also to this class. The general purpose of these precepts has
already been described by us. We will now proceed to explain them singly.

It is well known that man requires friends all his lifetime. Aristotle
explains this in the ninth book of his Nikomachean Ethics. When man is in good
health and prosperous, he enjoys the company of his friends; in time of trouble
he is in need of them; in old age, when his body is weak, he is assisted by them.
This love is more frequent and more intense between parents and children, and among
[other] relations. Perfect love, brotherhood, and mutual assistance is only found
among those near to each other by relationship. The members of a family united by
common descent from the same grandfather, or even from some more distant ancestor,
have towards each other a certain feeling of love, help each other, and sympathize
with each other. To effect this is one of the chief purposes of the Law. Professional
harlots were therefore not tolerated in Israel (Deut. xxiii. 18), because their
existence would disturb the above relationship between man and man. Their children
are strangers to everybody; no one knows to what family they belong; nor does any
person recognize them as relatives. And this is the greatest misfortune that can
befall any child or father. Another important object in prohibiting prostitution
is to restrain excessive and continual lust; for lust increases with the variety
of its objects. The sight of that to which a person has been accustomed for a long
time does not produce such an ardent desire for its enjoyment as is produced by
objects new in form and character. Another effect of this prohibition is the removal
of a cause for strife; for if the prohibition did not exist, several persons might
by chance come to one woman, and would naturally quarrel with each other; they would
in many cases kill one another, or they would kill the woman. This is known to have
occurred in days of old,” And they assembled themselves by troops in a harlot’s
house” (Jer. v. 7). In order to prevent these great evils, and to effect the great
boon that all men should know their relationship to each other, prostitutes (Deut.
xxiii. 17) were not tolerated, and sexual intercourse was only permitted when man
has chosen a certain female, and married her openly; for if it sufficed merely to
choose her, many a person would bring a prostitute into his house at a certain time
agreed upon between them, and say that she was his wife. Therefore it is commanded
to perform the act of engagement by which he declares that he has chosen her to
take her for his wife, and then to go through the public ceremony of marriage. Comp. “And Boaz took ten men,” etc. (Ruth iv. 2). It may happen that husband and wife do
not agree, live without love and peace, and do not enjoy the benefit of a home;
in that case he is permitted to send her away. If he had been allowed to divorce
her by a mere word, or by turning her out of his house, the wife would wait for
some negligence [on the part of the husband], and then come out and say that she
was divorced; or having committed adultery, she and the adulterer would contend
that she had then been divorced. Therefore the law is that divorce can only take
place by means of a document which can serve as evidence, “He shall write her a
bill of divorcement” (Deut. xxiv. 1). There are frequently occasions for suspicion
of adultery and doubts concerning the conduct of the wife. Laws concerning a wife
suspected of adultery (sotah) are therefore prescribed (Num. v.); the effect of
which is that the wife, out of fear of the “bitter waters,” is most careful to prevent
any ill-feeling on the part of her husband against her. Even of those that felt
quite innocent and safe most were rather willing to lose all their property than
to submit to the prescribed treatment; even death was preferred to the public disgrace
of uncovering the head, undoing the hair, rending the garments and exposing the
heart, and being led round through the Sanctuary in the presence of all, of women
and men, and also in the presence of the members of the Synhedrion. The fear of
this trial keeps away great diseases that ruin the home comfort.

As every maiden expects to be married, her seducer therefore is
only ordered to marry her; for he is undoubtedly the fittest husband for her. He
will better heal her wound and redeem her character than any other husband. If,
however, he is rejected by her or her father, he must give the dowry (Exod. xxii.
15). If he uses violence he has to submit to the additional punishment,
“he may
not put her away all his days” (Deut. xxii. 29).

The reason of the law concerning marrying the deceased brother’s
wife is stated in the Bible (Deut. xxv. 5). It was a custom in force before the
Law was given, and the Law perpetuated it. The ceremony of halizah (ibid. 6, seq.),
“taking off the shoe,” has been introduced, because in those days it was considered
disgraceful to go through that ceremony, and in order to avoid the disgrace, a person
might perhaps be induced to marry his deceased brother’s wife. This is evident from
the words of the Law: “So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up
his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that
hath his shoe loosed” (Deut. xxv. 9). In the action of Judah we may perhaps notice
an example of a noble conduct, and uprightness in judgment. He said: “Let her take
it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her”
(Gen. xxxviii. 23). For before the Lawgiving, the intercourse with a harlot was
as lawful as cohabitation of husband and wife since the Lawgiving; it was perfectly
permitted, nobody considered it wrong. The hire which was in those days paid to
the harlot in accordance with a previous agreement, corresponds to the ketubah which
in our days the husband pays to his wife when he divorces her. It is a just claim
on the part of the wife, and the husband is bound to pay it. The words of Judah,
“Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed,” etc., show that conversation about sexual
intercourse, even of that which is permitted, brings shame upon us; it is proper
to be silent about it, to keep it secret, even if the silence would lead to loss
of money. In this sense Judah said: It is better for us to lose property, and to
let her keep what she has, than to make our affair public by inquiring after her,
and bring still more shame upon us. This is the lesson, as regards conduct, to be
derived from this incident. As to the uprightness to be learned therefrom, it is
contained in the words of Judah when he wanted to show that he had not robbed her,
that he has not in the least departed from his agreement with her. For he said, “Behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not
found her.” The kid was probably very
good, therefore he points to it, saying, “this kid.” This is the uprightness which
he had inherited from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: that man must not depart from
his given word, nor deviate from what he agreed upon; but he must give to others
all that is due to them. It makes no difference whether he holds a portion of his
neighbour’s property as a loan or a trust, or whether he is in any other way his
neighbour’s debtor, owing him wages or the like.

The sum which the husband settles upon his wife (ketubah) is to
be treated in the same way as the wages of a hired servant. There is no difference
whether a master withholds the wages of a hired servant, or deprives his wife of
that which is due to her; whether a master wrongs a hired servant, and brings charges
against him with the intention to send him away without payment, or a husband treats
his wife in a manner that would enable him to send her away without the payment
of the promised sum.

The equity of the statutes and judgments of the Law in this regard
may be noticed in the treatment of a person accused of spreading an evil report
about his wife (Deut. xxii. 13, seq.). There is no doubt that the man that did this
is bad, does not love his wife, and is not pleased with her. If he desired to divorce
her in a regular manner, there is nothing to prevent him, but he would be bound
to give her what is due unto her; but instead of this, “he gives occasion of speech
against her” (ibid. xxii. 14), in order to get rid of his wife without paying anything;
he slanders her, and utters falsehood in order to keep in his possession the fifty
shekels of silver, the dowry fixed in the Law for maidens, which he is obliged to
pay unto her. He is therefore sentenced to pay one hundred shekels of silver, in
accordance with the principle, “Whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double
unto his neighbour” (Exod. xxii. 9). The Law is also analogous to that about false
witnesses, which we have explained above (chap. xli. p. 195). For he intended to
cheat her of her fifty shekels of silver, he must therefore [add fifty, and] pay
her a hundred shekels. This is his punishment for withholding from her her due,
and endeavouring to keep it. But in so far as he degraded her, and spread the rumour
that she was guilty of misconduct, he was also degraded, and received stripes, as
is implied in the words, “and they shall chastise him” (Deut. xxii. 15). But he
sinned besides in clinging to lust, and seeking only that which gave pleasure to
him; he was therefore punished by being compelled to keep his wife always, “he may
not put her away all his days” (ibid. 19); for he has been brought to all this only
because he may have found her ugly. Thus are these bad habits cured when they are
treated according to the divine Law; the ways of equity are never lost sight of;
they are obvious and discernible in every precept of the Law by those who consider
it well. See how, according to the Law, the slanderer of his wife, who only intended
to withhold from her what he is bound to give her, is treated in the same manner
as a thief who has stolen the property of his neighbour; and the false witness (Deut.
xix. 16, seq.) who schemes to injure, although the injury was in reality not inflicted,
is punished like those who have actually caused injury and wrong, viz., like the
thief and the slanderer. The three kinds of sinners are tried and judged by one
and the same law. See how wonderful are the divine laws, and admire His wonderful
deeds. Scripture says: “The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment”
(Deut. xxxii. 4), i.e., as His works are most perfect, so are His laws most equitable;
but our mind is too limited to comprehend the perfection of all His works, or the
equity of all His laws; and as we are able to comprehend some of His wonderful works
in the organs of living beings and the motions of the spheres, so we understand
also the equity of some of His laws; that which is unknown to us of both of them
is far more than that which is known to us. I will now return to the theme of the
present chapter.

The law about forbidden sexual intercourse seeks in all its parts
to inculcate the lesson that we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold
it in contempt, and only desire it very rarely. The prohibition of pederasty (Lev.
xviii. 22) and carnal intercourse with beasts (ibid. 23) is very clear. If in the
natural way the act is too base to be performed except when needed, how much more
base is it if performed in an unnatural manner, and only for the sake of pleasure.

The female relatives whom a man may not marry are alike in this
respect — that as a rule they are constantly together with him in his house; they would
easily listen to him, and do what he desires; they are near at hand, and he would
have no difficulty in procuring them. No judge could blame him if found in their
company. If to these relatives the same law applied as to all other unmarried women,
if we were allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual intercourse
with them without marriage, most people would constantly have become guilty of misconduct
with them. But as they are entirely forbidden to us, and sexual intercourse with
them is most emphatically denounced unto us as a capital crime, or a sin punishable
with extinction (karet), and as there is no means of ever legalizing such intercourse,
there is reason to expect that people will not seek it, and will not think of it.
That the persons included in that prohibition are, as we have stated, at hand and
easily accessible, is evident. For as a rule, the mother of the wife, the grandmother,
the daughter, the granddaughter, and the sister-in-law, are mostly with her; the
husband meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at
his work. The wife stays also frequently in the house of her husband’s brother,
father, or son. It is also well known that we are often in the company of our sisters,
our aunts, and the wife of our uncle, and are frequently brought Up together with
them. These are all the relatives which we must not marry. This is one of the reasons
why intermarriage with a near relative is forbidden. But according to my opinion
the prohibition serves another object, namely, to inculcate chastity into our hearts.
Licence between the root and the branch, between a man and his mother, or his daughter,
is outrageous. The intercourse between root and branch is forbidden, and it makes
no difference whether the male element is the root or the branch, or both root and
branch combine in the intercourse with a third person, so that the same individual
cohabits with the root and with the branch. On this account it is prohibited to
marry a woman and her mother, the wife of the father or of the son; for in all these
cases there is the intercourse between one and the same person on the one side and
root and branch on the other.

The law concerning brothers is like the law concerning root and
branch. The sister is forbidden, and so is also the sister of the wife and the wife
of the brother; because in the latter cases two persons who are considered like
root and branch, cohabit with the same person. But in these prohibitions brothers
and sisters are partly considered as root and branch and partly as one body; the
sister of the mother is therefore like the mother, and the sister of the father
like the father, and both are prohibited; and since the daughter of the parent’s
brother or sister is not included in the number of prohibited relatives, so may
we also marry the daughter of the brother or the sister. The apparent anomaly, that
the brother of the father may marry a woman that has been the wife of his brother’s
son, whilst the nephew must not marry a woman that has been the wife of his father’s
brother, can be explained according to the above-mentioned first reason. For the
nephew is frequently in the house of his uncle, and his conduct towards the wife
of his uncle is the same as that towards his brother’s wife. The uncle, however,
is not so frequent in the house of his nephew, and he is consequently less intimate
with the wife of his nephew; whilst in the case of father and son, the familiarity
of the father with his daughter-in-law is the same as that of the son with the wife
of his father, and therefore the law and punishment is the same for both [father
and son]. The reason why it is prohibited to cohabit with a menstruous woman (Lev.
xviii. 19) or with another man’s wife (ibid. 20), is obvious, and requires no further
explanation.

It is well known that we must not indulge in any sensual enjoyment
whatever with the persons included in the above prohibitions: we must not even look
at them if we intend to derive pleasure therefrom. We have explained this in
“the laws about forbidden sexual intercourse” (Hilkot issure bïah, xxi. 1-2), and shown
that according to the Law we must not even engage our thoughts with the act of cohabitation
(ibid. 19) or irritate the organ of generation; and when we find ourselves unintentionally
in a state of irritation, we must turn our mind to other thoughts, and reflect on
some other thing till we are relieved. Our Sages (B. T. Kidd 30b), in their moral
lessons, which give perfection to the virtuous, say as follows: “My son, if that
monster meets you, drag it to the house of study. It will melt if it is of iron;
it will break in pieces if it is of stone: as is said in Scripture, ‘Is not my
word like a fire? saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?’” (Jer. xxiii. 29).
The author of this saying thus exhorts his son to go to the
house of study when he finds his organ of generation in an irritated state. By reading,
disputing, asking, and listening to questions, the irritation will certainly cease.
See how properly the term monster is employed, for that irritation is indeed like
a monster. Not only religion teaches this lesson, the philosophers teach the same.
I have already quoted verbatim the words of Aristotle. He says: “The sense of touch
which is a disgrace to us, leads us to indulge in eating and sensuality,” etc. He
calls people degraded who seek carnal pleasures and devote themselves to gastronomy:
he denounces in extenso their low and objectionable conduct, and ridicules them.
This passage occurs in his Ethics and in his Rhetoric.

In accordance with this excellent principle, which we ought strictly
to follow, our Sages teach us that we ought not to look at beasts or birds in the
moment of their copulation. According to my opinion, this is the reason why the
cross-breeding of cattle is prohibited (Lev. xix. 19). It is a fact that animals
of different species do not copulate together, unless by force. It is well known
that the low class of breeders of mules are regularly engaged in this work. Our
Law objected to it that any Israelite should degrade himself by doing these things,
which require so much vulgarity and indecency, and doing that which religion forbids
us even to mention, how much more to witness or to practise, except when necessary.
Crossbreeding, however, is not necessary. I think that the prohibition to bring
together two species in any kind of work, as included in the words, “Thou shalt
not plow with an ox and an ass together” (Deut. xxii. 10), is only a preventive
against the intercourse of two species. For if it were allowed to join such together
in any work, we might sometimes also cause their intercourse. That this is the reason
of the commandment is proved by the fact that it applies to other animals besides
ox and ass; it is prohibited to plow not only with ox and ass together, but with
any two kinds. But Scripture mentions as an instance that which is of regular occurrence.

As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to
limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible,
and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that circumcision is to remove
a defect in man’s formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of
nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use
of the fore-skin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined
as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting
man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that
which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy
the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there
is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes
lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses
blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba,
c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual
intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the
commandment concerning circumcision. And who was the first to perform this commandment?
Abraham, our father! of whom it is well known how he feared sin; it is described
by our Sages in reference to the words, “Behold, now I know that thou art a fair
woman to look upon” (Gen. xii. 11).

There is, however, another important object in this commandment.
It gives to all members of the same faith, i.e., to all believers in the Unity of
God, a common bodily sign, so that it is impossible for any one that is a stranger,
to say that he belongs to them. For sometimes people say so for the purpose of obtaining
some advantage, or in order to make some attack upon the Jews. No one, however,
should circumcise himself or his son for any other reason but pure faith; for circumcision
is not like an incision on the leg, or a burning in the arm, but a very difficult
operation. It is also a fact that there is much mutual love and assistance among
people that are united by the same sign when they consider it as [the symbol of]
a covenant. Circumcision is likewise the [symbol of the] covenant which Abraham
made in connexion with the belief in God’s Unity. So also every one that is circumcised
enters the covenant of Abraham to believe in the unity of God, in accordance with
the words of the Law, “To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen.
xvii. 7). This purpose of the circumcision is as important as the first, and perhaps
more important.

This law can only be kept and perpetuated in its perfection, if
circumcision is performed when the child is very young, and this for three good
reasons. First, if the operation were postponed till the boy had grown up, he would
perhaps not submit to it. Secondly, the young child has not much pain, because the
skin is tender, and the imagination weak; for grown-up persons are in dread and
fear of things which they imagine as coming, some time before these actually occur.
Thirdly, when a child is very young, the parents do not think much of him; because
the image of the child, that leads the parents to love him, has not yet taken a
firm root in their minds. That image becomes stronger by the continual sight; it
grows with the development of the child, and later on the image begins again to
decrease and to vanish. The parents’ love for a new-born child is not so great as
it is when the child is one year old; and when one year old, it is less loved by
them than when six years old. The feeling and love of the father for the child would
have led him to neglect the law if he were allowed to wait two or three years, whilst
shortly after birth the image is very weak in the mind of the parent, especially
of the father who is responsible for the execution of this commandment. The circumcision
must take place on the eighth day (Lev. xii. 3), because all living beings are after
birth, within the first seven days, very weak and exceedingly tender, as if they
were still in the womb of their mother; not until the eighth day can they be counted
among those that enjoy the light of the world. That this is also the case with beasts
may be inferred from the words of Scripture: “Seven days shall it be under the dam”
(Lev. xxii. 27), as if it had no vitality before the end of that period. In the
same manner man is circumcised after the completion of seven days. The period has
been fixed, and has not been left to everybody’s judgment.

The precepts of this class include also the lesson that we must
not injure in any way the organs of generation in living beings (ibid. xxii. 24).
The lesson is based on the principle of “righteous statutes and judgments” (Deut.
iv. 8); we must keep in everything the golden mean; we must not be excessive in
love, but must not suppress it entirely; for the Law commands, “Be fruitful, and
multiply” (Gen. i. 22). The organ is weakened by circumcision, but not destroyed
by the operation. The natural faculty is left in full force, but is guarded against
excess. It is prohibited for an Israelite “that is wounded in the stones, or hath
his privy member cut off” (Deut. xxiii. 2), to marry an Israelitish woman; because
the sexual intercourse is of no use and of no purpose; and that marriage would be
a source of ruin to her, and to him who would claim her. This is very clear.

In order to create a horror of illicit marriages, a bastard was
not allowed to marry an Israelitish woman (ibid. xxiii. 3); the adulterer and the
adulteress were thus taught that by their act they bring upon their seed irreparable
injury. In every language and in every nation the issue of licentious conduct has
a bad name; the Law therefore raises the name of the Israelites by keeping them
free from the admixture of bastards. The priests, who have a higher sanctity, are
not allowed to marry a harlot, or a woman that is divorced from her husband, or
that is profane (Lev. xxi. 7); the high-priest, the noblest of the priests, must
not marry even a widow, or a woman that has had sexual intercourse of any kind (ibid.
xxi. 14). Of all these laws the reason is obvious. If bastards were prohibited to
marry any member of the congregation of the Lord, how much more rigidly had slaves
and handmaids to be excluded. The reason of the prohibition of inter-marriage with
other nations is stated in the Law: “And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons,
and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring
after their gods” (Exod. xxxiv. 16).

Most of the “statutes” (hukkim), the reason of which is unknown
to us serve as a fence against idolatry. That I cannot explain some details of the
above laws or show their use is owing to the fact that what we hear from others
is not so clear as that which we see with our own eyes. Thus my knowledge of the
Sabean doctrines, which I derived from books, is not as complete as the knowledge
of those who have witnessed the public practice of those idolatrous customs, especially
as they have been out of practice and entirely extinct since two thousand years.
If we knew all the particulars of the Sabean worship, and were informed of all the
details of those doctrines, we would clearly see the reason and wisdom of every detail
in the sacrificial service, in the laws concerning things that are unclean, and
in other laws, the object of which I am unable to state. I have no doubt that all
these laws served to blot out wrong principles from man’s heart, and to exterminate
the practices which are useless, and merely a waste of time in vain and purposeless
things. Those principles have turned the mind of the people away from intellectual
research and useful actions. Our prophets therefore describe the ways of the idolaters
as follows: “(They go) after vain things which cannot profit nor deliver; for they
are vain” (1 Sam. xii. 21); “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity and
things wherein there is no profit” (Jer. xvi. 19). Consider how great the evil consequences
of idolatry are, and say whether we ought with all our power to oppose it or not!
Most of the precepts serve, as has been stated by us, as a mere fence against those
doctrines [of idolatry], and relieve man from the great and heavy burdens, from
the pains and inflictions which formed part of the worship of idols. Every positive
or negative precept, the reason of which is unknown to thee, take as a remedy against
some of those diseases with which we are unacquainted at present, thank God. This
should be the belief of educated men who know the true meaning of the following
divine dictum: “I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek me in vain” (Isa. xlv. 19).

I have now mentioned all the commandments of these fourteen classses
one by one, and pointed out the reason of each of them, with the exception of a
few for which I was unable to give the reason, and of some details of less importance;
but implicitly we have given the reason even of these, and every intelligent reader
will easily find it.